GOP lawmaker takes out textbook, tells Mueller he doesn't have 'power to exonerate'

Discussion in 'United States' started by icehole3, Jul 25, 2019.

  1. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Then, there can't be a law against doing it. All things that are against the law have 'legal' definitions.
     
  2. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am of the opinion, that he is promoting a personal agenda by supporting the trumpian bullshit narrative. That ain't low info, its deliberate.
     
    ibobbrob likes this.
  3. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL! there sure is. Seems you don't know what you don't know.

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/

    Exoneration Law and Legal Definition
    Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent. Exoneration may lead to controversies when the person exonerated was convicted for death penalty. The term exoneration is also referred in the context of surety bail bonds. In this case, a judge may order a bond exonerated, in such cases the clerk of the court time, stamps the original bail bond power and indicates exonerated as the judicial order.

    The following is an example of state statute (Idaho) defining “exoneration”:

    Pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-2905 "Exoneration" means a court order directing the full or partial release and discharge from liability of the surety underwriting a bail bond or the person posting a cash deposit or a property bond.
     
  4. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see you can't quite grasp that "not exonerate" means that the question of his guilt has not been adjudicated since the evidence collected was substantial and met the all legal criteria for an obstruction of justice charge.

    But then again, there are all kinds of idiots out there, including your Dear Leader, that thinks he is innocent as the driven snow.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
    Gary/Dubya likes this.
  5. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet not reported to DOJ per mandate.
    Odd
     
  6. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes the Mueller investigation is over. He was not charged with a crime because Meuller was prevented from issuing an indictment against a sitting president.

    As for your contention that Barr didn't find any evidence, that is bullshit. There was direct evidence of obstruction of justice that Barr didn't even review as he admitted. But hey, a boot licking toady like Barr was explicitly put in to make that finding.



    I don't need to imagine anything we have reality.


    None was charged with conspiracy with the russians. That doesn't mean that they didn't cooperate, communicate and coordinate separate actions.


    HUH? It was the DNC hacked emails and it had a considerable impact on many voters. You may recall the reaction of hopping mad Bernie supporters that either didn't vote or voted for trump in anger.



    He said that to emphasize that no Americans were "involved in the indictments of Russians" because they all pertained to hacking initiatives by the GRU and IRC.

    And exactly how does he know that there was no effect on the voting decisions of many Americans? Oh right, its a feeling that completely and utterly defies the science of human communications not to mention the entire discipline of marketing.



    Ignore the MILLIONS of people who did buy them, because you didn't so it that stuff has no effect on consumer decisions. Amazing.

    And when it comes to social media, the usual economics of marketing are not a reliable measure of effectiveness or results. You have heard of the "going viral concept" haven't you? Its the marketer's version of asymmetric warfare. Low cost, big result.
     
  7. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course it was.

    Apparently you are not familiar that the report is a SUMMARY of tens of thousands of pages of documentary evidence and testimony of hundreds of witnesses. And Barr himself admitted he didn't review any of the underlying evidence AND accepted the report as a truthful representation. go figger.
     
  8. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :lol: No matter how you try and portray it, "inconclusive" is the bottom line. I like it when (D)'s try to :spin: the Kool-aid meme too. Jimmy Jones being 1 of the DNC's "rising stars" and poisoning his flock of "progressive" sheep in Guyana isn't something you can just project away.
     
  9. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,804
    Likes Received:
    9,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My god. Turn off FOX News

    We KNOW for a FACT that the Russians hacked the DNC. But the right in this country has to deny it at all costs to defend the election of Donald Trump. You do you Hoosier.

    If you cant even admit that the Russians hacked the DNC after pretty much everyone BUT Fox news admits it. then were done here because you cannot debate with people who refuse to recognize facts

    Have a nice day
     
    Gary/Dubya likes this.
  10. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A factual reply to be sure. Trump would have fired Rosenstein, who opposed Trump and was widely criticized by y'all. He flipped to save his skin.
     
  11. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,804
    Likes Received:
    9,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is correct. And congress is trying to investigate that, but the President, with cover from Barr is ignoring subpoenas. Are you OK with the administration ignoring subpoenas ?



    (c)If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.[/QUOTE]

    He didn't investigate the Obstruction because he wasn't charged to do so. What part of that escapes you ?



     
    Gary/Dubya and ibobbrob like this.
  12. icehole3

    icehole3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2017
    Messages:
    8,414
    Likes Received:
    10,869
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]



    Hoosier's right. Here's the Roger Stone court ruling as proof, not some RW website. Of course you would only get your info from a LW website.

    The FBI and DOJ were only allowed to see a “draft” report prepared by Crowdstrike, and that report was redacted

    …”the government does not need to prove at the defendant’s trial that the Russians hacked the DNC”… (pg 3)

    Here’s the full filing
    https://www.scribd.com/document/413428947/Stone-De-123-DOJ-Response-to-MTC-Crowdstrike-Reports
     
  13. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,804
    Likes Received:
    9,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Because nothin illegal took place
    2. An X British spy......I said X British spy, used information he got while working for an allied government, but was sourced AFTER he was a private citizen. And received by the Clinton campaign from an american company

    If you cant see the difference between that and data that was stolen from the DNC by a hostile foreign country, then we have nothing more to discuss.
     
    ibobbrob likes this.
  14. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,804
    Likes Received:
    9,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, they paid a private british citizen.
     
    ibobbrob likes this.
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, you don't know. The 'evidence' for that in the Mueller report is from DNC paid lawyers and DNC paid Crowdstrike that handed over a redacted report to the FBI. The FBI never did a forensic analysis of the servers and never got a full report.
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, they paid a foreign national to get information directly from Russians.
     
  17. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That isn't what Mueller told Barr. Barr asked him if that was the only reason he didn't indict Trump, Mueller said no. He knew it was TDS delusion that no jury would convict on.

    No, but Mueller was a boot licking toady for the Swamp.
     
  18. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,804
    Likes Received:
    9,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FFS, you guys keep pushing the Roger stone court ruling as some sort of fact that nothing else occured.

    The Roger Stone ruling was based on a VERY specific request from the defense team. They felt that their was information in that very specific case that would show what Stone said was true, and would exonerate him on one of the charges of lying. The right, trying to make this something it is not has tried to say that "since stone requested information from the crowdstrike case, then that the only information available". Its ridiculous on its face.

    1.EVERY intelligence agency charged with investigating interference in the election came to the same conclusion, that the Russians were responsible for the hack of the DNC

    2. The Stone case was very specific in their request, as are all requests to a court, and in no way proof that the only way anyone knew who hacked the DNC was because of Crowdstrike.
     
  19. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,804
    Likes Received:
    9,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many US agencies investigated the DNC hack ?

    Why did they need the DNC server to determine who hacked it ?
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  20. icehole3

    icehole3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2017
    Messages:
    8,414
    Likes Received:
    10,869
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Grape it's the government telling the judge they didn't look at the servers and that they took Crowdstrike's word for it. They even mention the report Crowdstrike gave to them wasn't the full version. It's kind of like when Barr gave you guys the full version of the Mueller report but redacted a few lines and your side wet nuts, wanting to put the AG in jail.
     
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As a foreign agent to obtain dirt from the Russian government.
     
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A foreign agent to obtain dirt from the Russian government a hostile foriegn country although that doesn't matter. There is plenty to discuss as in why didn't the OSC assigned to investigate all Russian interference ignored it.
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The entire second half of his report was the INVESTIGATION into OOJ. Congress is not a criminal investigative body
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  24. icehole3

    icehole3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2017
    Messages:
    8,414
    Likes Received:
    10,869
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    FBI requested DNC servers multiple times, and denied - James Comey
     
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Total baseless conjecture. Is that the best fallacious excuse you have.
     

Share This Page